🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@roboneko

Perhaps the better solution is that allegations in court shouldnt be made public unless convicted.

Honestly I'm not sure where I would stand on this issue. I'd have to think about it.

@arh@mstdn.io

@timezoneless Its a hot topic, and political. I dont doubt most people against guns disagree and most of those for guns agree. both sides will lie, exaggerate, and misunderstand the numbers to sell their PoV, so it doesnt make it easy to know what set of facts are correct without being a statistician yourself.

@timezoneless I think if the only reason for gun rights was govt tyranny but it want good for anything else, then yea, it doesn't make sense.

I think in modern day people focus much more on how gun rights tend to equate to lower violent crime rates overall. When we look at virtually every country in the last few decades that banned guns and the huge number of deaths that occurred as a direct result in the 5 - 10 aftermath of that ban, and when we see the same patterns in states and cities that ban guns, well ultimately it leads Americans to be very resistant to following down that path.

@timezoneless Yea I suppose. In the end I think its just that the numbers line up with the priorities of the americans.

When it comes to tyranny the numbers are int he peoples favor if they are armed.

When it comes to protecting against violent crimes the numbers are in the american peoples favor when armed.

When it comes to use for sports or hunting the generally low accidental casualty count is acceptable for a risky sport.

etc.

@timezoneless

No level of armament garuntees success in a war. Any level improves your chances of winning.

So the amendment improves the chances of the people winning compared to being disarmed should they ever have to fight their own government. That alone is sufficient.

I would argue that being armed, even against superior firepower would **significantly** improve the peoples chance of success. Consider that it is very possible in such a scenario that the military would have **much** smaller numbers overall than the whole of the US population. Assuming none of the military would flee should the govt become tyrannical you are talking about 600x more armed civilians than military. I'd say being less armed but having a 600:1 advantage in people would ultimately put the american people at the advantage.

@timezoneless So a few things. The reason for the amendment was manifold... it was to protect against government tyranny for sure, but also to protect ones personal life, for hunting, for sport, to protect from foreign invaders, and many other things.

Second, if there is a tyrannical government I think its a poor argument to say "They will have bigger guns, and therefore have an advantage so you should respond to that by putting yourself at an even greater disadvantage than you already". Also there is a reason wars are a vast majority of infrantry still despite having much larger fire power. In gorilla warfare it is the infantry with the guns that tend to make a much bigger difference than tanks or missiles. This is clear in vietnam where the opposing side was vastly underarmed and primarily infantry yet still won.